Skip to main content

About your Search

20130101
20130131
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
partnership, intergovernmental cooperation destroys responsibility and accountability. look at the e.u. to the e.u. destroy greece or decrease destroy the e.u.? is probably does, but you can't tell them they'll blame each other. the founders didn't need the e.u. to save his dangerous. all this arises for intergovernmental cooperation and common during. the founders didn't need the e.u. because they have the example comintern for them, the articles of confederation. there is a constitution that prohibits this and makes it very, very difficult in any event. the second objection to justice breyer or rather the objection to a second party is feds want to send sworn off officers. let them try. it seems already suggested, they can't enable and if they do, they will have to pay the fiscal and critical praise. so in a weird way, it would be great if we have fbi agents in santa clara breaking down the doors of pot smokers. i will. i will tell people more but the federal government than 50 papers from the cato institute. [laughter] >> one minus point and then i will end. this is a force of the a
was the better part of judgment. the eu has immense regulatory issues, and i think that they would have to be willing to essentially open up the markets and not use various procedures to try to safeguard the market. so i favor proceeding, but with an understanding that there are immense issues to be looked at. and it's not going to happen very quickly. but i am in favor of starting it. >> talking about nontariff trade, it is fancy language for regulations. whether we will allow european beef that could be contaminated with mad cow disease. inevitably out of that, there will come a reconfiguration of the safety net of the regulatory safety net on both sides. is that a troubling prospect you? dc some opportunities to streamline the way the two economies govern themselves? >> we have dealt with the issues with safeguarding other countries. we did that in the negotiations with colombia. we did that in negotiations with panama. if any two entities can resolve those issues, it is the eu and the united states. essentially, what the eu has been doing, in my judgment, to use regulatory provision
.s. and e.u. at the same time, i think we need to be realistic. i was -- [inaudible] what was that? over ten years ago, and i think there were unnecessarily optimistic views about how quickly it could be done and uncomplicated it was. it turned out that caution was better part of judgment. i think they would have to be willing essentially to open up the markets and not use various procedures to try to safeguard their market. so i favor proceedings, but with an understanding that there are immense issues to be looked at. and it's not going happen very, very quickly. i'm in favor of starting it. [inaudible] it's fancy language for -- regulations. whether allow european -- to you see opportunities to streamline the way the two economies governor themselves? >> it's the latter. let me put it this way. we have dealt with the issues regarding safeguards, safeguards and others with ore countries. we did that in negotiation with colombia. we did that in negotiations with panama. if any two entities resolve those issues, it's the e.u. and united states. essentially what the e.u. has been doing, in my
for the volcker rule set forth by the u.k. independent commission on banking and e.u. indeed, sir john vickers, chairman of the independent commission has already criticized the u.k. coalition government for backing away from his original proposal. while the european commission's summarize -- in a charmingly understated fashion stating in general in banks welcome the group analysis but argue that a compelling case for mandatory space of trading activity hasn't been made. they felt it wasn't back by the required evidence and there was a need for a thorough impact assessment. with all due respect, to my friend in the european financial regulatory community, when a regulatory proposal is viewed within the e.u. as being too harsh on the financial industry i think it's a clear sign it's time take a step back and reevaluate. regardless of what happens with respect to the vickers or like end proposals, even if all of the most allegations wall street's harshest critics are set -- even if they act out of self-interest. the financial institutions know that the volcker rule is not going away. as such, th
the sequester take effect? what is your understanding? >> the number is 9 eu7 with the -- 9874 with the sequester. it's sticking to that number letting the sequester take effect or replacing the, you know, the cuts and military and other programs. with other cuts that cut us to 974. it's stick to the 974 number, which i believe was the roc number last year in our budget. if we can get the democrats to agree with us doing the reform or manned story programs, we're willing to shift some of that to mandatory. >> and look, i would be elated to see a movement to the mandatory. if you look at the map, the mandatory what consume us as a people. if came to you today and said $100 savings in discretionary or $100 in mandatory? you take the mandatory. because it has a very powerful multiplier to effect future. if you have any modifications to the sequester, only on the decision their side, then the replacement cuts have to happen in the same time period. one of the problems we've had is when replacement cuts are suggested, it's they are spread out over five years or ten years rather than
this issue, but think about the health care system that would work for the e.u. but the closer model in the health care system that works for the netherlands. that's a thinking one of our larger state, adopting it. so it is recognizing we've taken one step in terms of expanding coverage. we are still struggling with how to get a more efficient outcome orient to health care system and it's going to take a lot of changes over the next decade or two decades. we've been having these discussions in medicare since its inception, which is now roughly 50 years. this is not going to get salt because one piece of legislation was passed. health care reform 1.0. hang on, the rest is coming the next decade or two. >> dr. ginsberg. >> in our history we've had in this country that cannot health systems abroad because of ideology. msp terrible if it's not ours. i think what is happening is we've identified a whole range of more technical issues come you know, how to pay organizations, individual providers, how to engage patients that can cross boards. i think that there's an opening to learn more fr
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6